Mixed impressions on u-he Zebra

[TiUser]

... It's f**king brilliant, period. It's not like it's getting mixed reviews, like other major players in the field. It's so versatile, too...

Thanks for your recommendation
I don't doubt about any of your statements - including making music
But well, before I forget myself, my question was not about zebra beeing good or bad but about my strange sonic perception experience...

[Howard]

...(except Zebra )

Leaders / High Teaweed

[TiUser]

...Note: I can't get what I'd call a good sound out of most synths. There are only a few I really like.

Apart from your "favourite synths list" on your site I assume it might be useless to ask you the $1.000.000 question which synths these are...
...just kidding a bit...

[Howard]

Apart from your "favourite synths list" on your site I assume it might be useless to ask you the $1.000.000 question which synths these are... ...just kidding a bit...

KeyToSound Remedy... oops I mean Zebra2.

[beej]

[Lotuzia]

Well, basically I agree to your statements. But for me I have to weight in some additional aspects.

I know, there are many pros around here, talented sound designers, producers and even software developers. I am an amateur musician with limited resources and mixed background experience in stage tech and amateur bands. My time for the hobby is limited. I am interested in the VSTi technology a lot but there are so many VSTi's around that systematically evaluating them is kind of problematic - and time to play or practise get's simply lost. So the first experiences are relatively important to me. Not to forget, hanging around in forums takes time too, but it's at least not much more than that...

For that reason flexible products like Zebra look attractive, you only have one but powerful tool and then taking some time to learn more may pay back anytime. On the other hand I have learned over the decades that finally sound decides and not the technical variety and options. So I am currently a bit fenced in between.

Just an example: When I am looking for great organs I would decide for a great simulation like NI B4 which can be operated as an organ and includes all the typical bells and whistles. Even if I don't need all at the first place I am set up well. Samples or possibly synth presets are second choice. Of course I would use those too if I already have them but I wouldn't take the effort to program a organ patch on a synth like zebra myself even it might be technically possible.

With more or less synthetic sounds it's even more difficult to rate the sonic capabilities. Also I understand the elements of synthesis and like tweaking patches I don't think I am able to do something great like Howards patches from scratch myself. So in a way the available patches are an asset to consider too - even I agree that those are always mirrors of the designers/musicians they created them for their purposes.

Just to state some other weird concept of synthetic sounds, I like those that have a kind of "natural" habit in them. That does not mean imitating real instruments but those who sound like naturally supporting and fitting a mix. Maybe this is another ides to see a doctor soon...

Anyway, it looks like there might arise some more interesting opinions to read about in this thread.

Yes, information and forum addiction can be quite time consuming. Everyone has to find the best ration I guess between real valuable info and music making.

My own feeling is that making music with only one tool, even the most versatile one, would be like making a symphony with a single guitar and numerous effects. Can be interesting, but would be limited in almost all other cases. Music rely on diversity.

For the same reason than above : I've made some organ patches for Gladiator that you would have some hard times to recreate in NI B4. Reverse is also true of course, B4 can reach territories that Gladiator will always ignore. Its like real strings, sample based strings, and analog strings : They dont sound identical, but are all usefull, at least in a_certain_project.

Natural habit : If you mean playability, expressivness, and a kind of "organic" feel, well, unfortunately, you're pushing me into one of my favorite obsessions, as this is my one of my main goals in sound design. (.... hopefully sometimes reached). This said a real SH-101 has no velocity, few parameters, an awsome sound (I'd say organic real analog qualities ....) and can be played just for these qualities. So it's certainly there that the choice factor is really important, and, beyond all marketing and hype issues, people have to choose the instruments and libraries that match their needs and desires. Wich is not a simple task. A happy meeting between a musician and one instrument is certainly one of the most wonderful things in music.

According to a certain private report in a certain very big company, more than 85% of the users will never make a patch themselves AND will never tweak a patch either. So that knowing how to tweak a patch is certainly a good thing, wich will make you part of the happy few "power users" (or unhappy, when you understand sometimes that whatever your skills you wont reach your goal with this_intrument in this_project ). Should we ask a pianist to transform a Bosendorfer into a Rhodes with a screwdriver, some wood and a fresh beer ? Some people only enjoy to play, while some others will have the need AND time AND minimal knowledge to craft or customize their instruments.

Besides all the above, my personal idea is that you know already a lot about all that

LtZ

[Kyran]

I understand what you mean with the "thin" sound. When I first tested zebra2 I was very disappointed, and didn't really get why everybody was raving it.

I then got zebraCM and still didn't get the appeal of the synth.
On it's own the sounds really didn't cut it. But well because it was sitting there on my hd I opened it up from time to time and most of the times I could get sounds out of it which sat in the mix perfectly. They could be background sounds or lead sounds, they just blended very well. They had character without pushing the rest of the sounds away.

So I ended up using ZebraCM quite a lot even though my initial impressions weren't all that positive. Eventually I bought Zebra2 as well. Now that I've invested quite some time in the synth I can get sounds which stand on their own as well. It has steadily replaced all my other synths (except for my MS-20).

What I'm trying to get at is, that while most of the individual sounds don't grab you by the balls in solo, somehow zebra's sound goes very well in the mix. It's kind of an aquired taste, which I prefer to all the other synths which make you go "wow" when you first hear them, but prove unusefull when making tracks.

An advise I can give you is to get in issue of sound and recordings or computer music magazine and use the trimmed down versions of zebra that come with it. I'm quite certain it's sound will grow on you when you use it a bit more. It really did for me

[dacaumodo]

Should we ask a pianist to transform a Bosendorfer into a Rhodes with a screwdriver, some wood and a fresh beer ?
LtZ

Love this! I'll remember this one next time i feel bad about using a preset (never happened so far).

[Urs]

What I'm trying to get at is, that while most of the individual sounds don't grab you by the balls in solo, somehow zebra's sound goes very well in the mix.

Thanks! That has always been my major goal

I think there are simply different schools of synth design. One example is "those that compensate for filter cutoff volume drop and those that don't". When you close Zebra's cutoff, the volume of the tone will drop. This is because high harmonics are taken out while lower harmonics preserve their level.

I think that some synth developers boost the volume at low cutoff to add that extra ooomph (which is also what happens in FM-Synthesis as the overall amplitude stays the same and is shared among harmonics, so that less harmonics seem to come out louder). Which may sound great in a solo situation. But in a mix this sounds like pumping: The mids and heights are covered by other instruments so that you're more focussed on the fundamental rather than the wholeness of the sound. But then, the fundamental gets boosted while cutoff falls. And this is pumping, and effectively the same as a compressor per voice.

I think that this also explains why many FM sounds have a relatively steep decay - to bring back the natural volume development of the fundamental frequency.

Now if you want that, you can always boost Oscillator levels and what not while you close the filter. No prob. Sounds great, but doesn't necessarily sit in the mix.

Hence I think that Zebra is not a wow-synth. It's a most-times-rewarding-get-used-to synth.

Urs

[TiUser]

I understand what you mean with the "thin" sound. When I first tested zebra2 I was very disappointed, and didn't really get why everybody was raving it. ...

Well your experience seems to go beyond my subtle uncertainty... it seems not to be quite the same but points in a similar direction... As I already said, words often don't get the sonic point. I am also not talking about single sounds but a general sonic impression or perception. This subtle thing does not vanish when I for innstance make a "thin" patch unison-8 with slight detune for instance... yes it gets fatter a way but this sonic perception thing is still there.

I don't know if this perception thing is too important for music, but I just experienced for me there is something odd...

I also experienced that some blasting solo sounds that make one wow do often not fit a mix... but to be honest I also found some that had both qualities and that were those I would have said before they have this "ok" quality. Again this is hard to describe.

Maybe my impression changes over time, I don't know. But 'til now if something made me interested instantly and it repeats doing this again and again then there is something in it I like... this happened to me when I bought my workstation and to be honest, I wasn't really ready to spent anything on new gear... but finally I did and I still like it today, 3 years after and I regret no dime having spent on it.

It was a strong experience and ever since I weight in this experience quite high. Compared to this the virus was a "conscience" decision, a mutifunctional piece of gear (stand alone synth, quality audio interface,...) with a relatively broad range of convincing synth sounds but nothing with the same touch to me... and that remained and has not changed much over time.

In other words, I am not sure if I'd be after a new virus once the one I own fails...

[TiUser]

My own feeling is that making music with only one tool, even the most versatile one, would be like making a symphony with a single guitar and numerous effects. Can be interesting, but would be limited in almost all other cases. Music rely on diversity.

I think there is a slight misunderstanding... or I wasn't precise or complete enough.
I am searching for well chosen flexible addons to my workstation kbd and my virus. In that sense I don't want and need ton's of VSTi's... just a few and the "best" ones of course...

Natural habit : If you mean playability, expressivness, and a kind of "organic" feel, well, unfortunately, you're pushing me into one of my favorite obsessions, as this is my one of my main goals in sound design. ...<snip>...
Which is not a simple task. A happy meeting between a musician and one instrument is certainly one of the most wonderful things in music.

You grabbed the essence of what I meant.
I really didn't search for that, just recognized it some day that's the way I like sounds most.

According to a certain private report in a certain very big company, more than 85% of the users will never make a patch themselves AND will never tweak a patch either....

Yes, I think you are right. Sometimes I am surprised how few people know about certain possibility of electronic instruments... on the other hand it is sometimes a hard deal to find out...
I checked out "plugiator" some time ago... a kind of preset synth box that is completely tweakable if you make use of the CC's and a remote controller keyboard... but no one seems to use that... strange... if I have the chance to get access to a mini (emulation) I want to check out the typical operation as well, it's part of the experience, like switching glide on and off, modifying glide time and modifying some other key parameters while playing... but players even don't be using CC#7 for volume pedal control and prefer using an oldstyle pot pedal feeding the audio signal through...

Well, I am tolerant, people can do what they like or maybe just use what they already have, it's ok to me, but I am sometimes really surprised what's going on...

Besides all the above, my personal idea is that you know already a lot about all that
LtZ

Well, I am for sure not a pro, gifted player, composer or "producer" - these day all people are producers, aren't they? - but 3 decades of hobby give you some insight too. Nevertheless I am still learning more each week...

[TiUser]

What I'm trying to get at is, that while most of the individual sounds don't grab you by the balls in solo, somehow zebra's sound goes very well in the mix.

Thanks! That has always been my major goal

I think there are simply different schools of synth design. One example is "those that compensate for filter cutoff volume drop and those that don't". When you close Zebra's cutoff, the volume of the tone will drop. This is because high harmonics are taken out while lower harmonics preserve their level.

...<snip>...

Hence I think that Zebra is not a wow-synth. It's a most-times-rewarding-get-used-to synth.

Urs

Urs, you are the deveolloper of Zebra right?

I have the impression you feel in a way offended but you are totally wrong.

Zebra is one of the most astounding VSTi synths I have ever seen. By it's nature - which syntheses method does it not offer? - it is a bit complex but even this is well managed with the gui.

I know of the leveling philosophies and different handling when filters start resonating or when applying cutoff. I also experimented with explicit and external compression and maybe I agree some way to your conclusions. I have also experienced that myself sonically... but this is all far from what I initially asked or what the subtle perception thing is about.

Additionally I don't agree that you need a specially designed synth engine to get sounds that stand out for solo and another optimized for sounds that fit well together in a mix. Excuse me, but I think that argument is nonsense.

Just to put some new fuel into discussion, I have heard a Solaris Demo, a simple analogue string sound, only some oscillators with basic waveforms, no wavetables, no filters at all... It sounded simply beautiful and had that "clean" appeal. You might call that nowhere near of thrilling or cutting through anything, maybe more likely cheesy...

I am not about anything related to special patches nor a "wow-synth" or "wow-patches" (many of these wow patches have also that "subtle plastic" in it), it is a specific perception one of the other guys here had too but just described it in totally different words.

[vurt]

ive only just put two and two together
i didnt realise you were that howard, gong have been one of my fave bands since birth
nice to meet you, and here of all places

lol - took you long enough

Didn't all the Moonweed patches Howard has done for nearly every synth he's worked on (except Zebra ) give enough clues?

yeah the patches i knew, the fact howard had signed up here was what i had noticed

[vurt]

...nice to meet you, and here of all places

Hi Vurt I remember that name - from Gmedia?

BTW: When I click on your WWW here, I get a "Directory listing denied" message.

yeah you were doing some sounds for dave and co, i imagine he passed on how excited i was to hear the news
http://www.viablehybrid.com/vh/artists/vurt/index.html
thats a better link, ive kinda forgotten how to edit my own site

[Vectorman]

The sound of Zebra often puts me in mind of something that has been recorded to analog tape...that slightly more smooth and subdued top end and general, pleasing "roundness about the edges." For a while, I had just assumed that the more moderate amount of top end in many Z2 patches was just a sound designer preference at work, so it's interesting to hear Urs state that it was actually a design choice not to have the high frequencies be as pronounced as on some other softsynths.

As others have noted, Zebra's less "hyped" sound may not instantly WOW you as much as the presets on some other synths, like NI Massive. But I've also found that Massive, for example, with its ultra-glossy top end, is not as mix-friendly, and that I often have to filter out a lot of that top-end gloss to keep it from fighting with vocals, cymbals, etc. Whereas Zebra tends to require a lot less fussing on my part to slot it into a mix. As the saying goes, "It just works."